Obama Victory Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
316

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
The Republican party is increasingly being seen as divisive and extremist.

[/quote]

Democrats need to clean the progressives out of their own house before throwing stones…

And they just elected a few of them last night.

So, I’ll take being called an extremist anyday because I believe in fiscal responcibility, the constitution and civil liberty.[/quote]

Not meaning to throw stones in a spiteful way. I am an independent. I am very concerned about our deficit. I believe in fiscal responsibility and am personally debt-free. But I just can’t vote for a candidate who heads up a party that is turning into a private, exclusionary club:

If you’re gay, you can’t join.
If you’re part of the 47%, you can’t join. (Never mind the fact that many of these people work in jobs that are ESSENTIAL to the running of this country.)
If you’re not Christian, you can’t join.
If you’re pro-choice, you can’t join.

You get the idea.

I’m old enough to know it wasn’t always this way. I voted for Reagan in my first election.

317

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I would think that all the believers on this forum would just accept the re election of Obama as their god’s will. Or, could it be that the Obama campaign outmenouvered even thier mighty god?

Say it aint so…[/quote]

False dichotomy. [/quote]

Jesus titty fucking Christ you like to say that a lot.[/quote]

It’s easy around here.

318

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Hey birthers, how did that work out for you ?

Stupid ass crazies, fucking Republican idiots saying rape is God’s will, how bout dat rape ?

Swear to God, if the Republican party does not punt these idiot fucks right out of the party, they deserve to lose. [/quote]

This. The Republican party is increasingly being seen as divisive and extremist.

And serious question here: If God is all powerful and all knowing, why wouldn’t you just assume Obama’s election is God’s will? Are you suggesting that he was asleep at the wheel? How do you decide when something is God’s will and when it’s not? [/quote]You libs don’t pay attention do ya? I practice what I preach. The exact number of particles and their behavior in the universe is under the power and decree of the living God. It is He who enthrones kings and topples empires. NOTHING can happen that is not His ultimate will or He is not God and something or somebody else is. Yes, the election of Barack Obama is the will of the God who declares the end from the beginning, calls those things which are not yet as though they already were and accomplishes all His good pleasure. as was the number of votes and what everybody who voted had for dinner. How many leaves made up of how many atoms blowing across your street right now. The fact that you favor the killing of unborn children was decreed from eternity past. That does not lessen it’s evil one bit nor does it make God Himself evil.

This has been discussed in excruciating detail elsewhere. You are invited to contribute there, but I don’t think you will. MaximusB is pounding his head on his desk right now reading this, saying that nutcases like me are the reason the republicans lost. Everything I just said was mainstream middle Christianity in the late 18th century when this nation was launched and I can prove it. We are dying for having abandoned the God who is it’s author. Not because a few (though more than you may think) of us anachronistic antiques still exist.

319

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:<< The vast majority of my friends are Christians. Well, you probably wouldn’t call them that… Oh please tell me God’s will! Its so rare to talk first hand with someone with “knowledge” of such a thing.[/quote]I’m fairly certain you’re right. I wouldn’t. You have no idea what a Christian is. Neither would God whose definitions are found in His word, the bible which I quoted to you. This is the wrong thread for this though
[/quote]

Typical hubris. Religion and Politics are not compatible, sorry to disappoint you. [/quote]

Why are they not compatible?

320

While there is quite obviously a desire to convert every single thread into a religious debate, let’s all do our part and keep the thread on track. Thanks.

321

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

I guess that the American people are a bit brighter as a whole than the sample I see on T-Nation.[/quote]

I have a low opinion of you - now it’s even lower. Well done.

There is a lot to be said for class and character in victory and defeat - go hunt some up.[/quote]

TBolt,

You have got to be kidding…

If you read the rest of the post you would know that I wasn’t calling you stupid (but I can if you’d like) I was referring to the way in which your smarties ran the campaign, specifically where I said “…the GOP has made a concerted effort to narrow their base throughout the primary season (hoping that nobody would notice on election day) and it has, once again, bitten them on the ass.” Your side should have let Romney run as the near-moderate his record reflected instead of forcing him to go so far right that his eventual dash toward the center came off as hollow and pandering.

322

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
The Republican party is increasingly being seen as divisive and extremist.

[/quote]

Democrats need to clean the progressives out of their own house before throwing stones…

And they just elected a few of them last night.

So, I’ll take being called an extremist anyday because I believe in fiscal responcibility, the constitution and civil liberty.[/quote]

Not meaning to throw stones in a spiteful way. I am an independent. I am very concerned about our deficit. I believe in fiscal responsibility and am personally debt-free. But I just can’t vote for a candidate who heads up a party that is turning into a private, exclusionary club:

If you’re gay, you can’t join.
If you’re part of the 47%, you can’t join. (Never mind the fact that many of these people work in jobs that are ESSENTIAL to the running of this country.)
If you’re not Christian, you can’t join.
If you’re pro-choice, you can’t join.

You get the idea.

I’m old enough to know it wasn’t always this way. I voted for Reagan in my first election.

[/quote]

Well said. Republicans are going to have to look themselves in the mirror and decide what is important to them: fiscal responsibility or social conservatism. The latter is dragging the former into the depths like a pair of cement shoes.

Sixty percent of voters may have said that the economy was the most important factor in this election, but they didn’t vote that way. Unemployment is at 7.9 percent; that isn’t a “re-elect the incumbent” figure.

The primaries forced a charade of pandering to people who are truly and inarguably stupid–the plurality of Republican primary voters who believed Obama to have been born in a country other than the United States, for instance–and it produced political hemlock like “self-deportation” and Senate candidates who couldn’t figure out how to talk about rape without making every woman in America wan to cut their nuts off with garden shears.

There are seriously good reasons to be conservative. But those reasons don’t have a chance to shine in the shadow of the stupidity and incompetence.

323

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
If you want to see a perfect example of how this board effects perception, look at how many people deluded themselves into believing Romney had a good chance of winning the election. [/quote]I called Obama for months, many months and only recently wavered because so many people and not just here, seemed to think Romney might win. As I’ve said also forever, Romney was a horrible candidate, just like McCain, but NOBODY would have accomplished anything more than simply delaying the inevitable because the problems with this country are rooted in our houses and not in DC. The character of this nation is truly reprehensible.

A president like Obama (or Romney) is simply the natural outcome. We are a nation of self worshiping, narcissistic, God denying whores for whom family faithfulness is a quaint and thankfully rapidly disappearing relic of the past rather the foundation of all that made us great. Save for a mighty redeeming work of the Spirit of the living God, which He most certainly could do, it is over. A president of death like Obama is the result, not the cause of our ever accelerating descent.
[/quote]

damn, and I thought I had a low opinion of people.

324

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

TBolt,

You have got to be kidding…

If you read the rest of the post you would know that I wasn’t calling you stupid (but I can if you’d like) I was referring to the way in which your smarties ran the campaign, specifically where I said “…the GOP has made a concerted effort to narrow their base throughout the primary season (hoping that nobody would notice on election day) and it has, once again, bitten them on the ass.” Your side should have let Romney run as the near-moderate his record reflected instead of forcing him to go so far right that his eventual dash toward the center came off as hollow and pandering.[/quote]

Nope, I wasn’t - and this is hardly the first time you’ve proven yourself a clown. That said, your post doesn’t make any sense - Romney ran as a moderate, and he in fact, captured the independent vote by running as such. What caused him to lose was the Democratic “base” turnout and the lack of the GOP “base” turnout.

325

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Sixty percent of voters may have said that the economy was the most important factor in this election, but they didn’t vote that way. Unemployment is at 7.9 percent; that isn’t a “re-elect the incumbent” figure.
[/quote]

I think someone else said this earlier but most people are split on what will fix the economy. Someone voting for the economy does not translate to a Romney vote. One of my smartest coworkers who is much more educated than me on politics and the economy eventually voted for Obama after months of thinking weighing the issues and the vote was based strictly on what is best for the economy, he is probably the only person I know who doesn’t care one way or another about the social issues either.

328

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And for any of you drive-by superheroes who may feel I’m just being bitter, an quick read through the threads will reveal that I and, as far as I know all of the PWI regulars have remained very civil and even friendly to each other, even when we occupy completely different quadrants of the political grid.

I have no respect for anyone who comes here with their chin in the air, gloating at members who’ve spent literally thousands of posts engaged in actual arguments and managed to maintain more poise and civility over half a years worth of discussion than you could muster in a single drunken paragraph.

Go back to GAL or whatever crevice it was you scuttered out of. [/quote]

No one has been nasty here. As far as I’ve seen, the democrats/victorious side has been civil – well apart from FI, who mostly posts in the Combat forum. But I can understand, he’s a fucking happy man right now, so what’s the prob with that? For months you guys had been criticizing/demonizing President Obama, and we let you. How much harm can silly posts of elation and/or criticism from the victor side cause you? Just chill :slight_smile:

I understand you’re upset right now but damn, take it easy. You sound rather elitist. Just because some of us, post drivel in GAL, it doesn’t mean we are not as intellectually knowledgeable as you are and we shouldn’t participate in this thread. So far most of the hardcore republicans in this thread have been classy in their congratulations.

And this is after all the ‘‘Obama Victory Thread’’, if people want to come scream their joy, let them be.
[/quote]

I was actually not talking about you. You need to keep in mind that I spend MOST of my time here, NOT in GAL. So when you come in here, there is a fairly deep context that you are not aware of. It’s kind of like when you say something to a friend and they bite your head off all of a sudden, and you, understandably, ask them what the hell their problem is. Well, if they are a friend, and don’t have a history of such behavior, there is a good chance there is a quite reasonable explanation for their behavior. You just don’t know thew whole story. Fighting Irish is honestly fine, I know him well enough and he’s put in his time her. His first post was classless, but then I’m used to his classless posts. But this Brian Hanson character is something else. He is a bane to this site, and seeing him posting here, followed by a few others who’ve posted rude, gloating posts (not just in this thread), coupled with dealing with rude, gloating facebook friends, and finally culminating in having to hear about how ANGRY we all are, well, I just decided that if people wanted angry, they could have what they were delusionally seeing anyway.

So, again, I don’t have a problem with you or anything you said here. Did I make myself a bit more clear, I hope?

329

Also what I’m looking forward to in the next 4 years is not hearing Republicans blame Romney’s slow or lack of progress on the previous 4 years.

330

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
ZEB is notably absent, no joke here, I hope he’s okay. [/quote]

I’ve been waiting to hear from him, too.

Where are you, Zeb?

331

Tbolt,

If you think Romney ran as a moderate you must think moderates are defined differently than they are.

Romney said he would:

Build a wall.

Create an environment of “self-deportation”

Repeal Obamacare

Repeal Roe V Wade

Increase defense spending

Eliminate FEMA (regardless of later backpedaling)

Cut funding for teachers, firemen and police

Eliminate the EPA (via Defunding not disbanding)

These were what I thought of in less than two minutes, these are not “moderate” stances. You can’t win if you can’t attract moderates, Romney managed to lose a winnable race because his pandering to the far right (Kock brothers and their ilk) cost him the middle.

332

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

  1. I don’t believe Paul Ryan to be electable in a national vote. He is too teabagger-ish, too anti-government, and will polarize voters so much that you will see the same break among the same groups towards a Democratic candidate.
    [/quote]

I second this. He is unelectable. Romney won me over to the extent that I decided not to vote for Obama in this election. I could vote for Jeb Bush, I could vote for Rubio or Christie or Portman if he were more interesting than a bag of grain. I wanted Huntsman to win the primary and I’d have voted for him enthusiastically if he had. If I had been of age (and with no foreknowledge of the consequences) I’d probably have voted for Bush in 2000.

I will never vote for Paul Ryan, and I’ll volunteer to help anyone who runs against him.[/quote]

Rubio, to me, is the most formidable of the opponents. Smart, educated, well-spoken, and a minority.
[/quote]

And young, clean and good looking, too, which is WAY more important than most people know.

333

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
S&P down %2.5 and falling. The selloff started last night, but the bulk of it has occurred since NY opened this AM. If funds had merely wanted to hedge against a market that they believed would be down in the short term, they would’ve been selling futures overnight. The fact they waited until NY opened means they’re looking for liquidity because they’re getting out of the individual equities.[/quote]

Good grief.

334

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Sixty percent of voters may have said that the economy was the most important factor in this election, but they didn’t vote that way. Unemployment is at 7.9 percent; that isn’t a “re-elect the incumbent” figure.
[/quote]

That is not fair - you’re drawing a conclusion from the “economy is the most important factor” survey that isn’t there.

Had someone asked me what the most important factor in this election was, I would have also said “the economy.” That sentiment, however, does not mean that I don’t like Obama’s plan, or that I disagree with Keynesian economics. It just means that the economy is the most important factor, and being as I disagreed with Romney’s plan, it’s just as important to democratic-tilting voters to make sure that they economy doesn’t tank again due to what they perceive as a poor economic plan from the GOP as it was for Republicans to vote against Obama’s.

Again, don’t draw conclusions that are not there. That’s part of the reason that pundits suck so bad at calling elections; they read that 60 percent number just like you did, and then don’t use logic to think through what that number might mean.

[quote]
The primaries forced a charade of pandering to people who are truly and inarguably stupid–the plurality of Republican primary voters who believed Obama to have been born in a country other than the United States, for instance–and it produced political hemlock like “self-deportation” and Senate candidates who couldn’t figure out how to talk about rape without making every woman in America wan to cut their nuts off with garden shears.

There are seriously good reasons to be conservative. But those reasons don’t have a chance to shine in the shadow of the stupidity and incompetence.[/quote]

Your party is not the party of the Edmund Burke conservative brand. It is the Sarah Palin brand. And that’s dangerous to the future of that party.[/quote]

A) The sixty percent figure is based on the exit polls, B) I like Obama’s economic philosophy alright too, but that doesn’t change the fact that 7.9% unemployment is a challenger’s advantage (as are the debt and deficit numbers), and C) The Republican Party is absolutely not my party.

335

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Tbolt,

If you think Romney ran as a moderate you must think moderates are defined differently than they are.

Romney said he would:

Build a wall.

Create an environment of “self-deportation”

Repeal Obamacare

Repeal Roe V Wade

Increase defense spending

Eliminate FEMA (regardless of later backpedaling)

Cut funding for teachers, firemen and police

Eliminate the EPA (via Defunding not disbanding)

These were what I thought of in less than two minutes, these are not “moderate” stances. You can’t win if you can’t attract moderates, Romney managed to lose a winnable race because his pandering to the far right (Kock brothers and their ilk) cost him the middle.[/quote]

Just to highlight how silly your response is, Romney didn’t say he would repeal Roe v. Wade - he couldn’t, it isn’t a law, genius. At best, Romney would pick justices that would overturn it, and the issue would go back to the states, where some would have it, and some wouldn’t. Hardly a “hardliner” approach in a country where affiliation with pro-life sentiments has risen recently.

In any event, we know you’re wrong because of the campaign played out - look at the number of typically liberal newspapers that flipped from Obama to Romney in 2012. Would the New York Daily News have endorsed Romney had he been the hardliner you claim he was?

Moreover, right-wingers are grousing this morning precisely because he ran as moderate and not a hardliner.

Do your homework. Romney consistently had the support of independent voters throughout, and won them, according to the exit polls. Romney lost because the Democratic ground game was so good, a la Bush’s base ground game in 2004.

336

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Sixty percent of voters may have said that the economy was the most important factor in this election, but they didn’t vote that way. Unemployment is at 7.9 percent; that isn’t a “re-elect the incumbent” figure.
[/quote]

I think someone else said this earlier but most people are split on what will fix the economy. Someone voting for the economy does not translate to a Romney vote. One of my smartest coworkers who is much more educated than me on politics and the economy eventually voted for Obama after months of thinking weighing the issues and the vote was based strictly on what is best for the economy, he is probably the only person I know who doesn’t care one way or another about the social issues either.[/quote]

I don’t deny this, but if you think these voters are weighing economic theories against the candidates’ propositions, you’re dreaming. Many Americans, when they are economy voters, look at the unemployment rate and say either “this good, me continue” or “this bad, me want change.”

A plurality of American citizens don’t know what GDP is. Only 2% knew what the debt ceiling actually was in a BBC survey last year.

338

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

A) The sixty percent figure is based on the exit polls,
[/quote]

I am not arguing the number. I believe you. I’m saying that you’re not looking deeply enough into what that number means, though.

It is a challenger’s advantage, but again, there’s a difference between people that think Obama’s economics policies are working SLOWLY and those that think that the economic policies are NOT working.

I want a faster recovery too, but presidents can’t pull that out of their ass and I think deregulation would kill us again - so while the economy is absolutely most important to me, it in no way means that I would ever have considered voting for Romney

[/quote]

You and I are on the same page here.